D&D 4.75e or Old is Old, my reaction on my first read through...


General Discussion


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems controversial threads (hence the D&D 4.75e in the topic title)seem to get the most response from general forum users...ironically...however...this isn't actually being written to be all that controversial. I am hoping to see more responses on these particular topics though.

To note, first off, I played 4e and I actually LIKED playing 4e...unlike many here.

That said, there are some things that I think are good with the Playtest...and some things which are so bad that I'm not sure they can repair the damage...so to speak.

Some of this may be because I am getting older. I don't consider myself all that ancient or old, but they say as one gets older the desire to learn new game systems and rules decreases...so perhaps my complaints stem from that. I have recently read and played other RPGs...so I am hesitant to say that is all it is, but it may be that due to age I am starting to enter that reluctance to try new things?

I'll come right out with two items which I don't like thus far, one which, to me, is extremely significant.

1. The way experience works seems like a pretty bad way to do it. On my first read it seem to be entirely arbitrary and undefined, and one's experience (pardon the pun/wording) with it will be entirely based upon the whims of their DM.

When 3e originally came out it operated on a CR system where you had differing amounts of XP based upon the character level vs. the creatures CR. The XP at one level may not be the same as at another level that one got from the same monster.

When P1E came out it was a breath of fresh air. Monsters were defined on how much XP they typically gave out. The guesswork was not so much out there and it was defined on how much and how many overall. It was far more defined than 3e or 3.5 editions of D&D. This also made experience simpler and easier to do.

PF2e has taken a step backwards from what I can tell. It seems simple at first, each character only needing 1000XP to advance each level. However, then you read about how the party earns XP. Obviously monsters cannot be worth the same for a 1st level character as a 10th level character, especially if the XP requirements are the same. However, rather than even go with the structure of the CR system of 3e, they go with something even more arbitrary. The DM decides on whether something is Trivial, low threat, standard, High Threat, Severe Threat, etc. and then from that decides the XP award. It seems VERY arbitrary.

To me, this is a fatal flaw with the system. What may be a Severe threat for one group and hence they gain XP for that...will be a Low level threat for another and they will get less XP. The same encounter could net vastly different amounts of XP to different groups dependant on the DM. In some ways this may even seem unfair or unjust among some groups and between various characters.

This could just me being old, but right now, I'm NOT a fan of the XP system and would like to see it changed to be something at least a tad more standard than what I've read thus far, and simpler to do.

2. The skill system seems to be more complicated and hard to remember in many ways. I think this is why Numbers that go up is actually been popular in the past, because a number is always easy to remember.

With PF2e you get the skill, but very limited upgrades. After that you seem to get better with skill feats. This makes a division that is hard to keep track of in my mind (as I said, it could be old is getting old).

I would prefer something a little simpler and easier to keep track of.

3. This is the only point that really deals with 4e. At various levels, even if they are called "Class Feats", characters get what would have been termed as Class Powers (which also were called various things such as prayers, or spells, and other such things in 4e).

Some of this is interesting, but (and this is where my old is old probably really shines through) it seems all pretty overwhelming. Each class gets so many of them (and for those who are saying there is less choices, these seem to grant a LOT of choices being available) that to my mind, it just makes it all that harder to keep track of what does what and who has what.

In otherwords, unlike some are claiming, to me, it seems it actually has become more complicated and harder to keep track of.

Isn't there a way to have the same effect, but make it easier and simpler to keep track of for the "old is old" folks like me?

Now some really GOOD things I liked on my first read through

1. I think this is the most organized and best written playtest rules I have ever seen. It is better than many publishers actual rule releases. It's indexed, has decent formatting, and is written as if it was the actual rules release rather than a playtest. I am excessively impressed with how well this rulebook is put together.

I cannot express just how impressed I am. It floors me with how much attention to detail, how well it was edited, and how well it was organized for a playtest. Those who put this together should get a HUGE applause and appreciation for their hardwork.

2. I think the base core rules are actually MORE complex than P1e, HOWEVER, the way the playtest book is written makes it seem simpler in contrast in some areas. The step by step process instructing one how to create a character is phenomenal. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the new process, the instructions on how to do it are some of the best step by step instructions I've seen in ANY RPG rulebook recently. They are also outstanding. It made the process easy to understand and easy to follow.

I think this is another one of those things that deserves 5 stars. To many rulebooks don't put enough attention to detail on this thing. I recently learned another RPG (won't name it here, no need to bad mouth that aspect of them behind their back) and it was 10 times harder to learn what the heck I was doing in character creation. That was their official rule release.

This is just a playtest and I found it a LOT easier to figure out how to make a character as per the playtest rules than with that other system.

3. I suppose just like I addressed a 4e ism type thing with my #3 post above under the bad, I'll do something similar with the good. I did play 4e, and I did enjoy it. However, when I read the blog on how multiclassing would work in the new playtest, I was actually VERY skeptical. I haven't played the game in a session yet (I will be the GM and it should be soon, still planning out the first session), but I actually found I like how archetypes will work in the Playtest.

I can't say I'm a fan of having multiclassing mixed in with Archetypes yet (hopefully someone will try it out in the actual playtest session I run) but I LOVE the idea of the archetypes being acquired the way they are. The Cavalier example won me over. I think it actually could be a lot of fun and add a lot of customization in ways not thought of in P1e.

And so, that's it on my first read through. I'm not quite as fast as many of the others on these forums that posted hours ago. It took me nigh 12 hours to get through much of it, and I still haven't gotten into the nitty gritty details of everything yet (but another thing I liked that I noted was with the Bastard Sword differing with one and two handed damage...), but I've noted some very good things and some things that I hope will be changed.


Something else I've noted about it, which seems to be straight out of the 4e rulebooks. There is both good and bad with this, but I'll post the good first this time.

the good

I LOVE that thing with the smaller skill selection and the general idea of skills working. The basic idea is pretty simple, and for me, (old is old I guess), simple is good in this instance.

The Bad

Escalating DCs. (for those who can't find this, the table is on pg 337 of the Playtest rulebook) This is what 4e did and it appears to be what PF2e is doing. So you want to climb that wall over there...great, that's a DC 14. Oh wait, your a level 12 character, sorry, that's a DC 30.

Sure, it's the same wall and all, but the DC just got that much tougher because you are a higher level...

Say WHAT!!!???

Yes, I know supposedly the task it represents gets harder, but that isn't necessarily how it gets played or seen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

The Bad

Escalating DCs. (for those who can't find this, the table is on pg 337 of the Playtest rulebook) This is what 4e did and it appears to be what PF2e is doing. So you want to climb that wall over there...great, that's a DC 14. Oh wait, your a level 12 character, sorry, that's a DC 30.

Sure, it's the same wall and all, but the DC just got that much tougher because you are a higher level...

Say WHAT!!!???

Yes, I know supposedly the task it represents gets harder, but that isn't necessarily how it gets played or seen.

I think you are misinterpreting the intent. The narrative would change to accommodate the increase in DC for the higher level challenge. The higher level wall has no handholds, is covered in grease, has thousands of wriggling worms coming out of it...whatever you want.

That chart on page 337 is great for coming up with DCs on the fly. If I think the wall is something that should be easy for someone at 12th level, I'd go with the trivial column.

The intent is to have the DCs escalate and the narrative behind the difficulty also increase to help the players feel "cooler".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:


PF2e has taken a step backwards from what I can tell. It seems simple at first, each character only needing 1000XP to advance each level. However, then you read about how the party earns XP. Obviously monsters cannot be worth the same for a 1st level character as a 10th level character, especially if the XP requirements are the same. However, rather than even go with the structure of the CR system of 3e, they go with something even more arbitrary. The DM decides on whether something is Trivial, low threat, standard, High Threat, Severe Threat, etc. and then from that decides the XP award. It seems VERY arbitrary.

To me, this is a fatal flaw with the system. What may be a Severe threat for one group and hence they gain XP for that...will be a Low level threat for another and they will get less XP. The same encounter could net vastly different amounts of XP to different groups dependant on the DM. In some ways this may even seem unfair or unjust among some groups and between various characters.

I think you might have the wrong end of the stick regarding XP for encounters (although I had to reread it to be sure). Instead of weighing how difficult the encounter was for your group and assigning an XP reward after the fact, there's a chart in the beastiary that lists how much XP a monster rewards, based on its level relative to the party.

A monster that is the party's level +1 rewards 60 XP whether it was a more or less a speed bump or they were fingers from death. It is also considered a "low" challenge to the party, again regardless of the actual difficulty these players had with it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

The Bad

Escalating DCs. (for those who can't find this, the table is on pg 337 of the Playtest rulebook) This is what 4e did and it appears to be what PF2e is doing. So you want to climb that wall over there...great, that's a DC 14. Oh wait, your a level 12 character, sorry, that's a DC 30.

Sure, it's the same wall and all, but the DC just got that much tougher because you are a higher level...

Say WHAT!!!???

Yes, I know supposedly the task it represents gets harder, but that isn't necessarily how it gets played or seen.

You might want to re-read the section, because that's exactly what the advice throughout the section says not to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:
You might want to re-read the section, because that's exactly what the advice throughout the section says [b]not[/i] to do.

Here's a problem with that. 4th ed did the same thing and it wasn't enough to stop DMs from doing exactly that. The rules have been out for less than 24 hours and we're already seeing people make the same mistake. This is an indication that we're going to get the same behaviour with these rules that we got last time a game had these rules in them. That's not good (unless you think auto-scaling DCs with no narrative change is good).

It's good to see someone from the polar opposite perspective (4th ed fan) seeing the same things I am. Although at the same time it's bad because it means it's not my own bias colouring my view of things.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Difficulty Classes is a segment of the book 3 pages long. That's 6 columns of text. The chart is half of one column. On the very next page, two-thirds of the page (1 and 1/3 columns) is given over to examples like you asked for. The levels of these challenges only range from 0 to 5, but it shows what they should be, what sort of situations could complicate the task and make it more difficult, and at what level the challenges can be viewed as trivial challenges.

If all of that and the written text isn't enough to show people how to use the table, I seriously doubt that anything Paizo can write is.

Also? I hated 90% of 4e as much as you do, John. I also happen to find your doom and gloom fatiguing and off-putting, so this will be the last time I bother to respond to you.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Cydeth wrote:
You might want to re-read the section, because that's exactly what the advice throughout the section says [b]not[/i] to do.

Here's a problem with that. 4th ed did the same thing and it wasn't enough to stop DMs from doing exactly that. The rules have been out for less than 24 hours and we're already seeing people make the same mistake. This is an indication that we're going to get the same behaviour with these rules that we got last time a game had these rules in them. That's not good (unless you think auto-scaling DCs with no narrative change is good).

It's good to see someone from the polar opposite perspective (4th ed fan) seeing the same things I am. Although at the same time it's bad because it means it's not my own bias colouring my view of things.

This nails it. I'm well aware of what they state about it, but what actually happened with it and how it was used in adventures was different. It was how I described it.

The shocker is this is the exact same take 4e did with skills, and it is rehashed in PF2e.

It doesn't work in the way they want it to in actual play. Perceptions from players are...wait...why do I have a trivial task have such a higher DC now than when I was at first level...shouldn't a trivial (or easy) task actually be easier?

If they are going to go the same route as 4e (which they are doing right now from what I can see with skill DC's and scaling) they need to devote a LOT more attention to their intention. It's going to need more than a paragraph or two or three to get the point across. They need to devote something like 5 pages worth explaining specifically why and how these are different and WHY, if a player wants to simply scale the same wall they did at 1st level, what the DC a GM should use then. Otherwise, despite what they say in a paragraph or two...

It's going to face the same problems we saw in 4e. At least they aren't going to have the group skill challenges (that's one item in 4e I basically tossed out the window or modified when called for).

One should LEARN from other's mistakes (and how they handled the skill thing in 4e was a mistake, the idea behind it was pretty cool and could still be, but it was handled poorly), not repeat them.

This was ONE thing from 4e that was pretty well acknowledged, even by those who liked 4e, as sometimes being problematic. Imagine my surprise to see it rehashed in PF2e.

This is NOT something that needs to be repeated in the same way it was with 4e. If one is going to for the same idea, than EXPLAIN it FAR better than it was previously, and clarify much more clearly (and I do think it would take pages to properly explain it, otherwise, when faced with the same wall they climbed at 1st level when they are 15th...the GM is going to be fumbling for the right DC and more than likely is just going to flow with the idea which I talked about in my first post rather than anything else).

This applies even more so to trivial tasks. If a task was trivial at 1st level, and a trivial DC is defined by the rules as being harder...that trivial task at 1st level just got a lot harder at 20th level. It's still the same task, it's still trivial, so does that mean it suddenly just got harder for players to accomplish?

Why is it harder for a 20th level character than a 1st level...and if not...what DC is the GM supposed to use.

It is this sort of questioning and questions that need FAR more clarity than what is provided, and should have a LOT more space devoted to it in the final rules if they are going to use the system they have currently gotten in place.


Cydeth wrote:

Difficulty Classes is a segment of the book 3 pages long. That's 6 columns of text. The chart is half of one column. On the very next page, two-thirds of the page (1 and 1/3 columns) is given over to examples like you asked for. The levels of these challenges only range from 0 to 5, but it shows what they should be, what sort of situations could complicate the task and make it more difficult, and at what level the challenges can be viewed as trivial challenges.

If all of that and the written text isn't enough to show people how to use the table, I seriously doubt that anything Paizo can write is.

Also? I hated 90% of 4e as much as you do, John. I also happen to find your doom and gloom fatiguing and off-putting, so this will be the last time I bother to respond to you.

I DID NOT hate 4e. I actually enjoyed playing it, which probably sets me apart from many here (though I DO dislike 5e).

I disagree, it NEEDS A LOT more explanation. This is something we already saw and went through extensively as players with 4e, and something we dealt with continuously and repeatedly.

IT was something that they swore would not be something 5e dealt with (and I think they held true to that promise) due to all the problems interpreting and understanding it.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad system (see my good point on it), but I think if PF2e is going to repeat it from 4e, they need to explain it a LOT better with better examples. Otherwise, it's going to cause the same problems as it did with 4e (well almost, hopefully the DCs are better with PF2e, 4e kept changing them from book to book and in errata because of the difficulties in dealing with them, the understanding of how it all worked, and other things).


Cydeth wrote:
If all of that and the written text isn't enough to show people how to use the table, I seriously doubt that anything Paizo can write is.

I 100% agree with you. That is why I believe the inclusion of such a table is a serious mistake and is something that strongly needs to not be in the final rules.

Cydeth wrote:
so this will be the last time I bother to respond to you.

Well... it was nice talking to you while it lasted.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I immediately noticed the similarity between class feats and 4e powers, and my gut reaction was to hate it, because I had hated how 4e had executed powers. However, as I read through the feats themselves, I found that pathfinder seems to have executed the feats much better than 4e had executed powers. First of all, it keeps the same general intent of allowing each class to have a variety of playstyles from the getgo - whether you're a fighter, barbarian, wizard, or druid, you're sure to have several interesting options as early as level one, and I think that's a good thing even if it makes character creation a little longer. Furthermore, unlike 4e, different combinations of powers are actually completely valid, and it's completely reasonable to double back and get lower-level powers that you missed the first time around, whereas 4e powers were grouped into arbitrary "talent trees" that really only amounted to each class having two or three possible archetypes, with mixing and matching being a surefire way of making a useless character. Because each feat is designed to be interesting and stand on its own, it's a lot more possible to customize characters.

Of course, character customization was also possible in Pathfinder 1 through the use of archetypes and multiclassing, but I think that PF2 executes it better, because you no longer need to worry about cross-referencing what archetypes are mutually exclusive because of what replaces what ability. Modularity is built right into the core classes, making it a lot easier for a casual player to customize a character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am having a similar problem with classes as I did with 4th Ed, I never really made it past the Cleric, once I realised all the classes were simply lists of similar power after power. I can't really get a feel for the classes in PF2, they read like a wall of sentence fragments or something.

Basically, I find the whole aesthetic of PF2 rather unpleasant (cluttered, granular, and the icons are horrendous), not as bad as SF, which makes my eye bleed a little bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to strongly disagree on modularity. Class feats are just: bonus feats, rogue trick, rage powers, etc. now not all classes got those, but most did. This is just the same modularity repackaged with a whole heap of combat feats taken out of circulation (some were made class feats).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I have to strongly disagree on modularity. Class feats are just: bonus feats, rogue trick, rage powers, etc. now not all classes got those, but most did. This is just the same modularity repackaged with a whole heap of combat feats taken out of circulation (some were made class feats).

I personally love how modular the classes are. It make it feel a lot more organic to me, wherein character classes are more or less just archetypes (the traditional meaning, that is - a recurrent symbol or "classic design") that are then customized and custom tailored to a specific play's style. I will wholeheartedly agree that it is hard to get an outright feel for a class with this new system, but with the same breath I will argue that this is an improvement over the previous system's "this class it good with x and y archetypes plugged in, but don't play it with a or b."

Or, a worse offender yet... D&D 5e and their "you must have an archetype, but you get no further customization beyond a 3rd level choice and some misc. choices of power at later levels).

Honestly, I was eagerly awaiting P2E for the level of customization. Even with some of the other glaring flaws in it - such as the proficiency progression - I am far from disappointed.


Hrödulf Domhnall wrote:

Or, a worse offender yet... D&D 5e and their "you must have an archetype, but you get no further customization beyond a 3rd level choice and some misc. choices of power at later levels).

Well, feats can help with customisation, outside of subclasses, but they are optional. They are talking about releasing alternate class features, which would be great.


Vic Ferrari wrote:

I am having a similar problem with classes as I did with 4th Ed, I never really made it past the Cleric, once I realised all the classes were simply lists of similar power after power. I can't really get a feel for the classes in PF2, they read like a wall of sentence fragments or something.

Basically, I find the whole aesthetic of PF2 rather unpleasant (cluttered, granular, and the icons are horrendous), not as bad as SF, which makes my eye bleed a little bit.

The playstyle is different than 4E but yeah it reads like it.

The fighter class is 9 or 10 pages long.


Hrödulf Domhnall wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I have to strongly disagree on modularity. Class feats are just: bonus feats, rogue trick, rage powers, etc. now not all classes got those, but most did. This is just the same modularity repackaged with a whole heap of combat feats taken out of circulation (some were made class feats).
I personally love how modular the classes are. It make it feel a lot more organic to me, wherein character classes are more or less just archetypes (the traditional meaning, that is - a recurrent symbol or "classic design") that are then customized and custom tailored to a specific play's style. I will wholeheartedly agree that it is hard to get an outright feel for a class with this new system, but with the same breath I will argue that this is an improvement over the previous system's "this class it good with x and y archetypes plugged in, but don't play it with a or b."

Did you mean to quote my post? Because you have addressed nothing I said and simply rearticulated what I argued against. There is no improved modularity. This is PF1e modularity regurgitated.


I made a thread dedicated to skill mechanics. I've taken some of the post from here.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with a lot of the points in this thread, and I'd like to respond to a bunch of points all at once.

I really like the modular approach of PF2e. I think the modularity is especially effective when it comes to spell heightening and cantrips.
While we are on the (controversial) topic of comparing PF2e to D&D4e, I want to point out one thing that I think D&D4e did extremely well. That is the topic of monster roles. I absolutely loved the fact that the 4e monster manual put monsters into roles, so that you could easily know what combat style a monster employed. This let the GM build interesting encounters that merged lots of different combat styles. You could start with a cool monster as the centerpiece of an encounter, and pick other monsters that made up for the main enemy's weaknesses (e.g. pick bruisers to make up for the relatively low defenses of a striker). The elite monster and minion templates from 4e were also excellent, but I felt that minions became less interesting after level 10. I also liked that character classes were given a role, even though you didn't have to follow that role. I also like that PF1e incorporated monster roles, but it seemed like an afterthought that was relegated to an appendix. Is this information going to be included in the final release of PF2e? It's unclear, because right now the playtest bestiary has a vague catch-all reference to "look in the 1e bestiary for fluff".

Here's where I think PF2e could really really stand out. Give us a more modular system of encounter building! The playtest bestiary says that a party of four characters can fight monsters that range between the party level - 4 to the party level + 4. That seems a bit dubious given the small number of bestiary entries; I predict that most encounters will range from level - 2 to level + 2. That's quite a nice spread of 5 monster levels, but I think they could do things differently for more effect. In fact, since the playtest bestiary monster entries are so static, I have serious doubts that four level zero enemies will actually produce an equal threat to one level four enemy. (I haven't thoroughly playtested that particular issue, just looked at monster entries.)
The change I would love to see is a bestiary that scales with player level. Essentially I want every monster to be "buildable" like the entry for dragons. This would dovetail with the trend towards bounded accuracy. I am not saying that we get rid of static monster entries. I very much like that each dragon entry in the bestiary has three pre-made dragons of differing level. Keep that system for every monster, but also add a quick and easy way to scale up or rebuild monsters at a different level.

Maybe that's asking a lot, but this hasn't been done well before. If paizo could come up with a good modular system of monsters, it would be huge.

As for XP rewards. I don't see any problem with it mathematically. They switched from a quadratic progression to a linear progression. That way at every level, fighting a creature of the appropriate level gives you the same amount of XP. This could be a very good thing for modularity, but to reiterate what I said above, they did not go far enough in making the bestiary monsters modular.

Lastly, I agree with above posters that PF2e's current approach to bounded accuracy (escalating DCs) is not going to work out. In particular, the table on page 337 is an absolute ABOMINATION! Having to use that table actively discourages me from GMing a 2e game. I predict that the table will cause play to grind to a halt whenever death saving throws come up. But I plan to write a separate thread on this topic.


willwrk4internet wrote:
Lastly, I agree with above posters that PF2e's current approach to bounded accuracy (escalating DCs) is not going to work out. In particular, the table on page 337 is an absolute ABOMINATION!

Yes, and the tables on the next page are also unpleasant.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Hrödulf Domhnall wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I have to strongly disagree on modularity. Class feats are just: bonus feats, rogue trick, rage powers, etc. now not all classes got those, but most did. This is just the same modularity repackaged with a whole heap of combat feats taken out of circulation (some were made class feats).
I personally love how modular the classes are. It make it feel a lot more organic to me, wherein character classes are more or less just archetypes (the traditional meaning, that is - a recurrent symbol or "classic design") that are then customized and custom tailored to a specific play's style. I will wholeheartedly agree that it is hard to get an outright feel for a class with this new system, but with the same breath I will argue that this is an improvement over the previous system's "this class it good with x and y archetypes plugged in, but don't play it with a or b."
Did you mean to quote my post? Because you have addressed nothing I said and simply rearticulated what I argued against. There is no improved modularity. This is PF1e modularity regurgitated.

Perhaps "improved" is overstating the case, although that level of modularity is improved for many core classes. If they had, coming out of 3.5, designed the PF1 classes with that level of modularity in mind, I think archetypes in PF1 would have looked much like they do in PF2. It was the rigid framework of classes like the cleric that forced the design of archetypes in PF1, and they made a conscious step to eliminate that rigidity and bring all classes up to the baseline established by barbarians and rogues.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
willwrk4internet wrote:
The change I would love to see is a bestiary that scales with player level. Essentially I want every monster to be "buildable" like the entry for dragons. This would dovetail with the trend towards bounded accuracy. I am not saying that we get rid of static monster entries. I very much like that each dragon entry in the bestiary has three pre-made dragons of differing level. Keep that system for every monster, but also add a quick and easy way to scale up or rebuild monsters at a different level.

A gentle person after my own heart. I too loved the way monster roles in 4e helped build an encounter. Actually I sort of loved every aspect of 4e's monsters, and going into PF from 4e was a step down.

That said, one thing PF did correct was simple monster templates. I think your wish for a way to edit a monster so that you can make it a biggger or lesser threat will be included. The devs also indicated we would also get an Unchained or Starfinder ruleset for building monsters in the full rules, although we did not get that for the playtest. The need to control variables is probably why they didn't just print them in the playtest beastiary.

Silver Crusade

AnimatedPaper wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Hrödulf Domhnall wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I have to strongly disagree on modularity. Class feats are just: bonus feats, rogue trick, rage powers, etc. now not all classes got those, but most did. This is just the same modularity repackaged with a whole heap of combat feats taken out of circulation (some were made class feats).
I personally love how modular the classes are. It make it feel a lot more organic to me, wherein character classes are more or less just archetypes (the traditional meaning, that is - a recurrent symbol or "classic design") that are then customized and custom tailored to a specific play's style. I will wholeheartedly agree that it is hard to get an outright feel for a class with this new system, but with the same breath I will argue that this is an improvement over the previous system's "this class it good with x and y archetypes plugged in, but don't play it with a or b."
Did you mean to quote my post? Because you have addressed nothing I said and simply rearticulated what I argued against. There is no improved modularity. This is PF1e modularity regurgitated.
Perhaps "improved" is overstating the case, although that level of modularity is improved for many core classes. If they had, coming out of 3.5, designed the PF1 classes with that level of modularity in mind, I think archetypes in PF1 would have looked much like they do in PF2. It was the rigid framework of classes like the cleric that forced the design of archetypes in PF1, and they made a conscious step to eliminate that rigidity and bring all classes up to the baseline established by barbarians and rogues.

I would say that I greatly support the "spirit" of making the game modular. As for the execution, there are some rough spots.

Could you please explain what you meant about barbarians and rogues being the baseline for classes?


willwrk4internet wrote:
Could you please explain what you meant about barbarians and rogues being the baseline for classes?

I think they mean having things like rage powers or rogue talents for every class.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sure. Like John said, Rogues and Barbarians in PF1 had a lot of modularity built into their classes. Every other level, you get to freely pick a talent among a list, which gradually gets bigger and stronger as you move up. Many later classes, like Oracles, Witches, and Magi, followed a similar pattern, cumulating in the Vigilante, the pinnacle of talent picking. To a lesser extent, Fighters also had this modularity, although that came in the form of bonus combat feats. Rangers and Paladins had options, but they were pretty constrained and didn't have as much. All of the casters were fairly constrained, to a greater or lesser extent, as their modularity was seen to be their spell selection.

Edit: Monks were just a mess, which is why they were redesigned to be more flexible. On the flip side, summoners were redesigned to be less flexible, so it's a balancing act.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / D&D 4.75e or Old is Old, my reaction on my first read through... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion